It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 264
31
<< 261  262  263    265  266  267 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Then there are for-profit religious institutions that brainwash children into believing stories (with no evidence what so ever) and horrible consequences should they ever question the message.
Actually that is where they would be wrong. As mentioned in the bible, god made it clear that he would no longer be able to tend to us. The damage you speak of is allready done, to us through the form of DNA. The bible IMO is a book of genocide.




Nobody can say with 100% certainty that things happened as science has uncovered. I mean, it's impossible to prove that some higher being didn't for example create the world as is 6000 years ago, and just made it seem like everything happened as science puts it. As far as I care people can believe whatever they want. However, this does not change the fact that it sure looks like things happened exactly as science puts it
Well I agree but I also believe that flagellum proves creation over evolution anyday. A court case I guess turned out differently. I just fail to see how gears and sprockets could have evolved. I think it shows poor taste for evolutionists to even try to argue that one and IMO makes them look real dumb, but they do it.




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Please explain how one would backtrack through the fossils to witness genetic change?
Simple, get ahold of some bones that are say 200,000 years old and test them against our current DNA for differences.




This is the last time I'm saying this. WE DO HAVE PROOF! Stop ignoring the human mutation rates that can be measured! Are they just making the numbers up out of thin air in a peer reviewed science experiment?
Well in all honesty, they could be. There is no way to know for sure if those changes they are seeing are from the normal options of the species to begin with. I allready had a long write about this just a few ago. What and who is to say that 5 and 6 feet people are normal and 9 feet people are not? We do, we determine this based on whats common and whats not. My point is just because something is common doesn't not mean its proof of being normal. Whos to say that 10 feet people are actually normal.

And why would I want to drop this argument? You can see from what I just wrote that there is a very serious open ended problem here. We are basing it all on assumptions. You can't rely on assumptions.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Don’t you ever get tired of displaying your ignorance?
So your unable to provide examples in all of the scenerios I have given but I"m the ignorant one.




Are you so dumb that you believe the world will somehow transform into your fantasy if you repeat your infantile nonsense often enough?
No but I do hope that eventually someone will produce something with substance to me that proves evolution is not based on a hypothetical postualted theory.




To be repeating the same ignorance after 263 pages of being spoon fed information is beyond ignorance. I have proof that we witnessed evolution in humans.
You don't have jack. One thing you do have is a lot of assumption which I"m sorry to say seems to be the basis for evolution.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


This is a hard subject to tackle without veering straight into God vs Science and all the other topics and theories that brings about. With that said, look at it from a truly un-biased point of view, and stay on the intended topic. Here is my two cents worth.

The question that was asked: Can you prove evolution wrong?

Answer: No

My question is what form of evolution? Better yet, what you consider the definition of evolution to be. I think of evolution as a mutation, adaptation, or a birth defect.

This is where I want to get off topic. If we all came from an organism that crawled, or slithered its way out of some primordial ooze, why such extreme diversity in species? To me it seems like the diversity would tend to be lesser. Why are all living things pre-programmed with the one main objective to reproduce? Why are there typically a male and a female pair needed to reproduce in almost all species? Why isn’t there life on every planet and in the vacuum of space? There has to be some form of intelligent design to rationalize this. How would critters know that they have to reproduce before they die? What creates that drive? It must have come from the master programmer. Otherwise every species would have evolved to the point that it wouldn’t need a partner to reproduce or species would be so dumb they would simply die out on their on. I'm on the fence on this one its like which came first the chicken or the egg. What created the the "singularity" that casued the big bang, what created that? what created the creator?

Like Lynyrd Skynyrd says there are things goin on that you don't know. Humans are limited by our own rules and theories and brain capacicty. There are things that humans will never come to fully understand until its too late and then you are either worm dirt, burning in hell, or sitting in heaven.

So believe what you want. Don’t try to force your beliefs on someone else. Just respectfully disagree.

science really don't know what the he!! is going on.
big-bang-theory.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Simple, get ahold of some bones that are say 200,000 years old and test them against our current DNA for differences.


Ok, to begin with, finding soft tissues in fossils is ridiculously rare. Last time it happened was with a dinosaur bone, and the DNA sequence proved that they were an ancestor of chickens.
www.livescience.com...

The oldest human-connected bone (fossil) found is described here:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
edit on 28-2-2012 by Varemia because: fixed quote



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hogleg
 


Respectfully, there is nothing hard about this subject, unless you wish it to be that way. Evolution is an evolving (yup I went there) scientific theory., the other path is a faith based belief with no actual framework beyond.

"Things are complex....a creator did it."

The rest of your post presupposes a purpose or meaning is required for life and demonstrates a bias toward design.

An old one liner will answer the first part.. "Nature abhors a vacuum." (A quick and easy way to describe any void in the ecological chain.)

The rest will not be addressed as it speaks for itself.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 
Thanks for replying. Like I said I'm still undecided, and I agree with you that I am leaning towards creator.
I didn't mean that everything has to have a purpose for life to exist, but everything dose have a purpose or life wouldn't exist at all it is a very delicate balance to sustain life on our planet.

So are you saying that things are complex so they had to occur out of pure dumb luck and some primortial ooze?

Wouldn't we have to be the oldest living form of life to have evolved to this point of superior intellect, tecnology, tools etc. And we are not the oldest by far according to science.

You could go back and forth on this forever, I just wish I knew the answer.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hogleg
 


No, that's actually a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution isn't the constant improvement of organisms toward intelligence. It is just our current best description of the change that organisms go through based on gene frequency changes over time throughout populations.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I think anyone would tend to repeat themselves especially when your not producing anything solid on the side of evolution.
A very dishonest response. That answer may have been able to be justified if you had ever read and discussed the information. You did not. You never have.


Anyone that would simply accept being spoon fed ignorance, must be a fool.
Yes. That is exactly what you have been told time and again but you continue to quote Pye and the fakes that you base your fake argument on.


So fake that I even pointed out where you could buy one. This is why we end up in circles. I don't want to accept unproven garbage, and you refuse to accept anything proven.
Here you are again. Proof you dont read and avoid things you cannot answer. The algea and shrimp not fish and plant. The shrimp should live around 20 years as per info I spoon fed you. In the jar it is 1 to 3 years slowly comsuming itself. That is not a balanced eco system but you ran without discussing like the coward you are


Your antics havent proven anything.
Antics. You bloody fool they were examples that showed all your nonsense false and you again adopted the ignorant coward and ran. So I have proven you are dishonest, ignorant and uneducated. I will continue to as long as you spout this nonsense and refuse to discuss replies given to you.


edit on 29-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So your unable to provide examples in all of the scenerios I have given but I"m the ignorant one.
What a dishonest thing to do. I have always responded to all of your posts unlike you to mine when you cannot answer.

You would not know how to pose a scenario if you took a course. You write stupudity. Stupidity I and others have addresses over and over again which you dismiss without reading or discussion. Why would anyone continue to jump through hoops for such a liar?


No but I do hope that eventually someone will produce something with substance to me that proves evolution is not based on a hypothetical postualted theory.
Are you really a science master when you should know it is up to you to produce evidence to support your case?

I remind you this thread is to discuss the diversity we see today without refering to evolution. You have never even attempted this while trolling your nonsense. You are too scared to.


You don't have jack. One thing you do have is a lot of assumption which I"m sorry to say seems to be the basis for evolution.
Not only showing your complete ignorance of the subject it should also mean you will only be to happy to remain on topic and describe the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hogleg
 
Hi Hogleg
A little history of this thread. The title was changed. It is so NOT can you prove evolution wrong.

It was meant to be about discussing the diversity we see around us without refering to evolution. A conversation started and then the mug with aliens turned up and sent this thread to ignorance hell.


This is where I want to get off topic. If we all came from an organism that crawled, or slithered its way out of some primordial ooze, why such extreme diversity in species?
Because the enviroments it slithered into are diverse


Why are all living things pre-programmed with the one main objective to reproduce?
My answer that you probably wont like is . If the imperative had not been to reproduce life would never have made it passed the start.


Why isn’t there life on every planet and in the vacuum of space?
Way off topic but. How do we know one way or the other. We may be a one off, a rarity or life could be common throughout the universe. Its anyones guess till we have proof one way or the other.


There has to be some form of intelligent design to rationalize this. How would critters know that they have to reproduce before they die? What creates that drive? It must have come from the master programmer.
It comes back to if we did not then life would not have continued. You see a designer because you are looking from this end and we personalise everything. The truth is it took a long time with small changes and the designer is the changeing enviroments


came first the chicken or the egg
The egg.


What created the the "singularity" that casued the big bang, what created that? what created the creator?
That is too far off topic. Evolution has nothing to say on how life started or why the universe formed.


So believe what you want. Don’t try to force your beliefs on someone else. Just respectfully disagree.

Oh I see you wish to Lecture me on respect. First you should have read the OP that explained the purpose of the thread. This would have meant I would not have needed to address the questions you asked but did so as I thought you wanted a discussion not give an etiquette lesson

Second. Please do not walk onto this thread having not reviewed any of it and then preach to me about manners.

Tooth has earned his disrespect. ALL of it.

I hope that explains things to you.
edit on 29-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I think if evolution were correct. It would be unquestionable and with out any wrenches thrown in the works.

But there are wrenches.

Above Top Secret
edit on 29-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hogleg
reply to post by Noncompatible
 
Thanks for replying. Like I said I'm still undecided, and I agree with you that I am leaning towards creator.
I didn't mean that everything has to have a purpose for life to exist, but everything dose have a purpose or life wouldn't exist at all it is a very delicate balance to sustain life on our planet.


Hi Hogleg,

Why does everything have to have a purpose? All life on Earth has a niche, not a purpose. You guys need to consider the possibility (probability) that life just IS. There's no purpose to it beyond the organism surviving long enough to pass on its DNA to its offspring.

The purpose of life, if there is one, is to perpetrate DNA. That's it. DNA is very good at getting itself replicated and passed on, because without a living body, DNA is useless. It's one of the most inert and nonreactive molecules in nature.

Second, there is no such thing as balance in nature. That's a cozy little myth, but it doesn't exist in reality. There is no such thing as ecological stasis--there is only change. And it's partly this imbalance and change that drives evolution in the first place. Let's say there's a natural disaster. The survivors will (hopefully) pass on the traits that enabled them to survive in the first place, and many times the species that replace the ones that were wiped out are those we'd consider pests, plagues, weeds. So much for balance. Forest fires are required for some species of plants and trees to spread their seeds and reproduce.


So are you saying that things are complex so they had to occur out of pure dumb luck and some primortial ooze?


They didn't have to, but I see no need to invent a supernatural, omniscient being as a Creator. If you can say that there has to be a Creator because it's impossible for life to arise out of ooze, well, that's just plain wrong. It's also a false dichotomy. Seemingly impossible things, from a statistical standpoint, happen all the time. What are the odds that I'd see a license plate PA EPA 1234 this morning? Calculate it. The odds are so astronomical as to be non-existent. And yet, it happened, and it happens every second of every day, to all 7 billion people on the planet.

Not to mention that evolution doesn't say a word about how life began.


Wouldn't we have to be the oldest living form of life to have evolved to this point of superior intellect, tecnology, tools etc. And we are not the oldest by far according to science.


Where does it say that there has to be this inexorable march towards bigger, better, and more complex? Who says we are the superior intellect on the planet? This anthropocentric view is a huge part of the reason many creationists view evolution the way they do. We are not the pinnacle of evolution or anything else. There's nothing fateful about our existence on Earth. We could be gone tomorrow while the cockroaches and microbes will be here when the Sun explodes.

Once you realize that we're pretty insignificant, it puts things in perspective.






edit on 2/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



1. There's the fossil evidence (e.g. the pic I linked a few pages back and the lack of fossils representing contemporary species).

If its the link I'm thinking of, there was nothing written with it that claims to have proven any link what so ever to humans.

Yeah, I suppose it's impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. The younger the fossils, the more similar they are to contemporary humans (and the same applies to all contemporary life). What do you think this indicates?





2. There's the genetic evidence (including common descent of all organisms on Earth)
This genetic evidence you referr to is also called overlap, when it matches in sections with other species. There is nothing that has ever proven overlap to be proof of evolution, your assuming.

Again, what do you think it indicates?





3. There's the 'relic' evidence (whales with hip bones, humans with tail bones, etc.)
Those don't prove anything, we have people today with tails.

Aquatic species has hip bones. What do you think it indicates? We have tailbones, our genetically closest living cousins also have tailbones. Neither have tails (give or take a freak of nature). What does this indicate?





4. There's the functional evidence (e.g. bacteria derived organelle powering our cells)
Finding the same life in two different places does not conclusivly prove evolution.

But what does it indicate?





5. There's the 100% lack of evidence to the contrary (e.g. no model put forth that could prevent evolution from happening)
So in other words because we have nothing better to go on, it must be true. I have been spewing intervention for weeks not on this thread, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than evolution. The best part is we have a plethora of documentation that it is what actually happened.

Now you are just lying. There's no evidence what so ever supporting anything other than modern synthesis. To the contrary every single observation supports it. In other words, it's very likely true, because there are no other alternatives (apart from magic stuff, but if we go there, then we can say that Batman created man, and that's just as valid hypothesis than any other magic invoking one (e.g. there's the same exact amount of supporting data, none).



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


Nobody can say with 100% certainty that things happened as science has uncovered. I mean, it's impossible to prove that some higher being didn't for example create the world as is 6000 years ago, and just made it seem like everything happened as science puts it. As far as I care people can believe whatever they want. However, this does not change the fact that it sure looks like things happened exactly as science puts it
Well I agree but I also believe that flagellum proves creation over evolution anyday. A court case I guess turned out differently. I just fail to see how gears and sprockets could have evolved. I think it shows poor taste for evolutionists to even try to argue that one and IMO makes them look real dumb, but they do it.


Which particular flagellum are you talking about? As I recall, about 10 fundamentally different types of flagella have been discovered so far, and they all have their own evolutionary origins (thou I suppose most of them are related to proton pumps one way or another, I'm not a structural biologist thou so I might be wrong).
edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by colin42
 


I think if evolution were correct. It would be unquestionable and with out any wrenches thrown in the works.

But there are wrenches.

Above Top Secret
edit on 29-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Yet another example of someone holding science to a higher standard than they do their Bible.

Science doesn't work that way. We don't question gravity, yet it has its problems, too. Theories evolve based on new evidence. We know it's not perfect, but it is the best thing going and I doubt it will ever be overturned.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
[
Which particular flagellum are you talking about? As I recall, about 10 fundamentally different types of flagella have been discovered so far, and they all have their own evolutionary origins (thou I suppose most of them are related to proton pumps one way or another, I'm not a structural biologist thou so I might be wrong).
edit on 29-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


That's basically correct, there are 3 main types, but lots of subtypes: bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic...although the proton motive force is powered by proteins in bacterial flagella, and some are driven by sodium ion pumps and not proton pumps.

Too complex to get into here, methinks.

edit on 2/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/29/2012 by HappyBunny because: Fix quote tags



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Ok, to begin with, finding soft tissues in fossils is ridiculously rare. Last time it happened was with a dinosaur bone, and the DNA sequence proved that they were an ancestor of chickens.
www.livescience.com...

The oldest human-connected bone (fossil) found is described here:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
I think this is just from overlap and they are being very presumptuous.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
Again I dont care about wrenches this thread is about discussing diversity without refering to evoluiton.

Respectfully if you want to expalin why you think evolution is wrong please use the many threads that welcome it as the topic.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





A very dishonest response. That answer may have been able to be justified if you had ever read and discussed the information. You did not. You never have.
I think your confusing the fact of you usually responding, as being toward the questions. Most of the time your not touching my questions. I'm sure there is a very good reason for it, like you don't have an answer.





Yes. That is exactly what you have been told time and again but you continue to quote Pye and the fakes that you base your fake argument on.
Well that's because you still haven't provided anything that proves them all to be a fake.

I'm starting to see a pattern again where everything is about colins little world, and not reality.




Here you are again. Proof you dont read and avoid things you cannot answer. The algea and shrimp not fish and plant. The shrimp should live around 20 years as per info I spoon fed you. In the jar it is 1 to 3 years slowly comsuming itself. That is not a balanced eco system but you ran without discussing like the coward you are
I see, so then what your saying is even though they are calling it a balanced eco system, your saying they are lying.




Antics. You bloody fool they were examples that showed all your nonsense false and you again adopted the ignorant coward and ran. So I have proven you are dishonest, ignorant and uneducated. I will continue to as long as you spout this nonsense and refuse to discuss replies given to you.
You have never said anything worth running from.




top topics



 
31
<< 261  262  263    265  266  267 >>

log in

join